AN 


ADDRESS 


DELIVERED AT 


CHE COMMBN CRU sawe 


OF THE 


GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 


IN THE 


UNITED STATES, 


HELD IN 


CHRIST CHURCH, NEW-YORK, 


ON THE 


Thirtieth Day of June, 1826. 
oi P——— 


BY JOHN CROES, D. D. 


BISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN NEW-JERSEY, 
——< 


Published at the Request of the Trustees. 


NEW-YORK : 


PRINTED BY T. AND J. SWORDS, 
No. 99 Pearl-street. 


ee see eo 


1826. 


ADDRESS. 


Gentlemen, the Professors of this Institution, 


I RISE at your request, to deliver the address which 
custom has authorized on these occasions: and while I 
gratefully feel the respect which you have shown me, E 
cannot withhold that which is so justly your due, for the 
ability, the zeal, and the faithfulness, with which you have 
respectively executed your important offices; manifested, 
as they have been, not only in the recent, but in every 
preceding annual examination of the students of the Se- 
minary committed to your care. Were I to give vent to 
the full tide of my feelings on the present occasion, I 
should express myself, Gentlemen, in much stronger 
terms of approbation and regard than I have permitted 
myself to do. Less than what I have said, would virtu- 
ally have been a denial of the commendation which you 
ustly merit. 


In addressing you generally, young Gentlemen, stu- 
dents of the Seminary, and especially those of you who 
have this day completed your triennial course of study, 
and are on the eve of receiving its honours, it will be 
expected perhaps, that I shall also say something in ap- 
probation of your diligence, and proficiency in the studies 


4A, 


which you have pursued; if such diligence and proft- 
ciency have been apparent in your examinations. 

Although this has been indirectly expressed, in the 
short, but just tribute of respect which has been paid to 
your able and fearned instructors; yet I hope it will not 
be thought improper, should I address to you personally 
a few words commendatory of your theological attain- 
ments. On this, as well as on former occasions, I be- 
lieve there has been but one sentiment among the Trus- 
tees, and other gentlemen, who attended your examina- 
tions. Whether your attention had been directed to the 
improvement of your knowledge in the Greek, or to the 
acquisition of the Hebrew language ; whether to a general 
acquaintance with the several books of which the Holy 
Scriptures are composed, or to a critical investigation 
of the original text of each; whether systematic Theology 
or Ecclesiastical History ; whether the nature and con- 
stitution of the Christian Church, the origin, orders, and 
duties of its ministry, or pulpit eloquence, had been the 
subject of your studies, you have generally, in the opinion 
of all, exhibited, by your attainments, both the skill and 
precision with which you have been taught, and the dili- 
gence and care with which you have studied. 

But though you have made such considerable progress 
in theological science, and the studies connected with it; 
and—in the case of those who have completed the course 
prescribed by the canons of the Church—are ready for 
admission into the first grade of the ministry ; yet, in the 
proper exercise of your office, more, much more is im- 
plied, than the bare communication of the knowledge 
which you have so largely acquired: “For” though 
“the priest’s lips should keep knowledge,” and the 
people “ should seek the law at his mouth, for he is the 
“messenger of the Lord of hosts;” yet if he do not 
also, by the piety, purity, and inoffensiveness of his life 


5 


and conversation, show that the doctrines and precepts 
which he teaches and inculcates upon his hearers, have 
their due influence upon his own mind and heart; he 
will make but little useful impression upon them; and 
of course his preaching be comparatively in vain. . 

The manner also of communicating the knowledge 
which you have so sedulously acquired, and of using the 
primitive and incomparable ritual which the Church has 
provided and exclusively adopted, are important parts in 
the execution of the sacred and responsible office which 
is shortly to be committed to you; and have no small 
claim to your most serious consideration and care. 

These, and other properties necessary to be known 
and observed in the exercise of the ministerial office, 
have all doubtless been presented to your minds by the 
able Professors of the Institution; and have made, we 
trust, impressions not easily effaced. Still, such is the 
frailty and weakness of our nature-—so liable are we, in 
the continual conflict between the flesh and the spirit, to 
lose sight, m a degree, of the motives which alone should 
actuate us, and suffer others of a contrary nature insidi- 
ously to obtain the ascendency in our minds—that we 
cannot be too often reminded of the spiritual nature and 
properties of our office; and at the same time be cau- 
tioned against self-delusion, and the delusions of the 
tempter. Upon any other principle than this imperfec- 
tion in our nature, addresses on these occasions—as they 
are little more than repetitions of what you have already 
heard—would seem entirely superfluous. 

In reviewing, young Gentlemen, the administration of 
the office to which you purpose shortly to be admitted, 
it occurred to me, that something might perhaps be sea- 
sonably and usefully said, in the first place, to remind 
you of the spirit and the manner in which the Gospel 
ought to be preached; and to caution you against the 


6 


admission and indulgence of views and feelings altoge- 
ther at variance with the one or the other; which too 
frequently, it is to be feared, though perhaps impercep- 
tibly, influence young men on their entrance upon the 
exercises of the desk and pulpit. 

In the second place, to guard you against the impro- 
priety, not to say criminality, of departing from the ru- 
brics of our ritual, and from our seemly and long esta-. 
blished usages, and the evils of which such departure 1s 
the fruitful cause. 

From the first exercise of his ministry, it 1s especially 
the duty, and ought to be the care of every person ad- 
mitted to holy orders, to bear in mind, and impress 
deeply upon his heart, that he is not, as in other profes- 
sions, and in mere secular pursuits, acting for himself, 
pursuing his own interest and glory, and therefore at 
liberty to use such means as he may think will best con- 
duce to the accomplishment of those objects; but that 
he is, as his title imports, a servant, or special agent of 
his Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in whose service he 
has voluntarily engaged; and is employed by him as a 
steward, to dispense to his fellow-men the mysteries of 
Gop, or the great doctrines and precepts of the Gospel. 
In all his ministerial performances, therefore, whether 
public or private; whether conducting the worship of 
Gop, administering his holy sacraments, or delivering 
his message of peace and reconciliation to the penitent 
and believing; the obligation rests upon him to act 
strictly and faithfully in this character. Contemplating 
himself in this point of view, can he for a moment indulge 
the thought, that he may consistently, and with impunity, 
make the Church of the living Gop his theatre, to dis- 
play the elegance and taste of his composition, the great- 
ness of his literary and scientific attainments, and the 
graces Of his elocution; and thus excite the admiration, 


7 


and court the applause of his hearers? These qualities, 
though lawfully, and sometimes not improperly, exhibited 
in other places, and on secular occasions, are very foreign 
from the Church of Gop; and the exhibition of them, 
for such purposes, is inconsistent with the character of 
his ministering servants. 

Different from this is the christian preacher, who acts 
under the influence of his sacred. and responsible station. 
He preaches not himself, delivers not his own philoso- 
phical or metaphysical speculations, nor does he seek 
admiration by the display of his oratory. On the con- 
trary, he acts always as the steward and servant of his 
Master ; and therefore cannot, consistently with his office, 
deliver any thing to his hearers but the message commit- 
ted to him-—the everlasting Gospel : and though he dis- 
penses it with the solemnity, the earnestness, and the 
dignity which become a message from heaven, he dares 
not mingle with it “the enticing words of man’s wis- 
“‘dom ;” nor so far forget himself and his high station, as 
to aim at the praise and adulation of his hearers, when he 
ought only to seek the glory of Gop and the salvation of 
his fellow-men. 

It may be thought that the description just given of 
the manner in which a truly Christian minister dispenses 
the word of Gop, is so obviously correct, so necessarily 
the course that every one who enters upon the sacred 
office is bound to pursue, that cases of an opposite cha- 
racter can rarely occur—at least not sufficient to justify a 
formal caution on the subject. This conclusion would be 
natural and just, if the motives that influence the human 
mind were always pure; if even men who profess to be 
religious, and believe that they are under the influence of 
that profession, were not also, in a considerable degree, 
under the influence of the corruption of our common 
nature; and are therefore not only liable to mistake, but 


8 


frequently do mistake the motives that govern their con- 
duct. Since, indeed, we meet with instances of such 
departure from the simplicity, modesty, and unaffected 
manner with which the prayers of our Church should be 
offered, and the Gospel preached,—instances in which 
the voice and manner of the officiator, the style of his 
composition, and the display of his learning when he 
preaches, give us too much reason to fear that he is more 
solicitous to be considered an orator and a scholar, than 
he is to impress upon the minds and hearts of his audi- 
ence the doctrines and duties of our holy religion,—we 
must believe that the caution is neither unseasonable, nor 
altogether unnecessary. 

I would not have it, however, understood, from what 
has been said, that. I do not approve of the exercise of 
much care and attention as to the manner of performing 
the devotional services of our Church, and of dispensing 
the mysteries of Gop. Far from this: especial attention, 
I think, should be given to the subject, in order that 
these important ofices may be performed with the ut- 
most propriety. As congregations are generally com- 
posed of the learned as well as the unlearned, of the 
refined as well as the plain and uncultivated—candidates 
for orders, as well as those who already conduct the de- 
votions of the people, and dispense to them the word of 
Gop, should take great pains that the manner of their 
performances may be, not only, not offensive, but pleasing 
and agreeable to all. For this purpose, they should en- 
deavour to be natural, easy, and upright in their positions, 
free from awkward and unseemly motions and gestures, 
and all grimages or distortions of the countenance. That 
they may also be heard with ease and satisfaction, their 
enunciation should be natural, in contradistinction to 
swelling, mouthing, or vociferating—articulate and clear, 
not rapid, mumbling, affectedly precise, nor with mea- 


g 


sured tones; and their pronunciation should be carefully 
correct, according to the best standards; in fine, they 
should endeavour so to modulate their voices, as to cone 
vey the meaning of every sentence they deliver, without 
dulness, monotony, feebleness, or so defective a cadence 
as either to cause their hearers the trouble of supplying 
from their own conceptions the last word, which is pro- 
nounced inaudibly by many speakers, or to discontinue 
their attention to the discourse altogether. 

Their general manner also should be solemn, devout, 
earnest, and impressive; such as becomes the sacred 
office of those who are set apart and divinely commis- 
sioned to offer up the supplications of sinful men to the 
Majesty of heaven, and declare his message of peace and 
reconciliation; and such as leaves no doubt of their sin- 
cerity in the minds of their congregations—no idea that 
they are thinking of themselves, or ‘ handling the word 
“ of Gop deceitfully ; but by munifestation of the truth, 
‘are commending themselves to every man’s conscience 
in the sight of Gop.” 

This, it will be observed, is very different from that 
theatrical manner, that aiming at the character of an ora- 
tor, with a view to popular applause, which some clergy- 
men, not heeding the nature of their office, and “ loving 
‘‘ the praise of men more than the praise of Gop,” have 
in every age of the Christian Church too plainly maui- 


fested. 


[shall now, in a few remarks, call your attention to the 
impropriety, not to use a harsher term, of not regarding 
the rubrics of our ritual, and our séemly and long esta- 
_ blished usages; and the evils of which such disregard is 
the fruitful cause. 

The duty and utility of strictly observing the canon 
and rubries in the divine service of our Church is so 
2 


10 


obvious, that any caution against disregarding or violat~ 
ing them. would seem totally unnecessary. But, obvious 
as the duty and utility are, it cannot be denied or con- 
cealed, that clergymen are found among us, who, from 
whatever cause, or under whatever pretence, do, in some 
cases, neither regard the letter nor evident meaning of 
the rubrics; but either omit or abridge some part of the 
appointed service, or add to it some service or ceremony - 
of their own. Now the rubrics, that direct the perform- 
ance of those parts of the service which they omit at their 
pleasure, not only do not allow, either by their letter, by 
fair construction, or by inference, the omission of them ; 
but indeed. give no countenance to it. Much less does 
the thirty-fourth. canon, which confines the public wor- 
ship of the Church tothe Book of Common Prayer, au- 
thorize, or even countenance the introduction or use of 
any extemporaneous or other prayer, during divine sere 
vice, whether before or after sermon: and yet on this 
canon, the clergymen referred to, found their presumed 
permission to use such prayer. <A very little reflection, 
however, must convince every person, who is not under 
the influence of invincible prejudice, that the Church could 
not, by any supposed omission in the thirty-fourth canon, 
have intended to give permission to her clergymen to use 
even extempore prayer in any part of her public service, or 
to countenance such an idea. She could-not have been 
so inconsistent with herself. Why did the Church from 
which she immediately sprung, in the establishment of 
her public worship, adopt the liturgic mode? Because 
the Church of Gop, both Jewish and Christian, had al- 
ways worshipped with forms of prayer; because her 
Divine Head had sanctioned that mode, by composing 
a form for his disciples; and because, on these accounts, 

as well as the obvious advantages, indeed necessity, of it, 

in a joint worship, she could not avoid the conviction that 


il 


it was unquestionably the best, and therefore the only one 
she ought to adopt. Could we then, originating from 
that Church, identified with her for many years, believing, 
with her, that the liturgic mode of worship is the prefer- 
able one—have been so inconsistent as to adopt in lieu of 
it, or even permit to be used in any part of the service, a 
mode of prayer, which, upon our own principles and uni- 
form practice, must have been considered inferior, and 
not at all suited for public worship? Surely the Con- 
vention which passed that canon, could have had no idea 
that they were permitting a mode of prayer to be used in 
one part of the divine service, which they actually prohi- 
bited in another: for the same reason which made it im- 
proper in the one.case, made it equally improper in the 
other. 

But that the permission contended for cannot be in- 
ferred from the presumed omission 1m the thirty-fourth 
canon, and that the Convention who -enacted it ‘had no 
intention of giving such permission, will be strikingly 
evident from the tenor of the thirty-eighth canon, which 
was passed in the'Conventien of 1795, six years.after the 
thirty-fourth was enacted. In this canon, authority was 
given to the Bishops to compose forms of prayer and 
thanksgiving, to be used in their respective Dioceses on 
extraordinary public occasions. ‘The necessary inference 
from this is, that the Bishops themselves, previously to 
the existence of this canon, had no authority even to 
compose forms of prayer on any occasion of public wor- 
ship, much less to make those of an extemporary kind. 
How then can i be supposed, that the Presbyters and 
Deacons possessed authority, by the thirty-fourth canon, 
to make extemporaneous prayers on ordinary occasions, 
provided it was done after sermon, when it was thought 
necessary to enact a new canon, in order to give authority 


12 


to the Bishops even to compose forms of prayer, and 
then only on extraordinary occasions ? 

But had the clergymen who persevere in miscon- 
strung the thirty-fourth canon and some of the rubrics, 
and in acting upon that misconstruction, much better 
ground to justify their departure from uniformity than 
they have ; was the sense of the canon and rubrics, in- 
deed, at all questionable ; still it might be thought that 
love of order, the unity of the Church, and respect for the 
opinions of the Bishops and a large majority of their bre- 
thren, would induce them to conform—at least till they 
should bring the question before the General Convention, 
and a final decision be had on it in that assembly. That 
they have not already taken this course, is greatly to be 
lamented; because every departure from uniformity in 
worship, which the Church has with so much care endea- 
voured to preserve, tends to weaken the union, disturb 
the peace, and finally produce dissensions and schisms in 
that body, 


Should this course be objected to, on the ground that 
a majority, both of the House of Bishops and of Clerical 
and Lay Deputies, would most likely decide against their 
construction of the canon and rubrics; and, in all proba- 
bility, would not consent so to alter them as to meet their 
wishes— What would this be, but saying, in other words, 
that they are not willing to submit a questionable con- 
struction of the laws and regulations of the Church toa 
decision of the General Convention, the highest legislative 
body within her pale, because the maiority of that body 
may decide against their wishes; and they are not dis- 
posed to yield to the judgment of that majority, although 
it should comprehend in its number a large proportion of 
the elder and most respectable and experienced clergy- 


13 


men in the Church? This would certainly argue but 
little for their modesty, their charity, their meekness, their 
regard to the apostolic exhortations—* Be ye all of one 
“‘ mind””—** Let every thing be done decently, and in or- 
‘¢ der” Let nothing be done through strife or vain- 
*‘ slory ; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other 
“ better than themselves ;” or for their compliance with 
the subscription, and with the promise, which they made 
at their ordination. 

Were the omitting of the parts of the service referred 
to, and the use of extempore prayer, in themselves cases 
of conscience—and was there no obligation resting on 
clergymen to comply with the canons and rubrics—the 
case would be different: but as the omitting of the for- 
mer, and the using of the latter, (were there no laws re- 
quiring and prohibiting them,) could be considered only 
as mere matters of expediency; the putting at hazard of 
the peace and unity of the Church, and the creating of 
parties in her bosom, by pertinaciously contending for 
such things, and against the face of the rubrics and 
canon, cannot be justified by any principles of religion or 
prudence. But were they even cases of conscientious 
scruples, the course pursued of evading the plain sense of 
the canon and rubric, by a gross misconstruction, could 
on no just principle be defended. 

In either case, if they could not conform to the laws, 
regulations, and usages of the Church, they would do 
her much less injury by withdrawing from her pale— 
however dangerous that procedure might be for them- 
selves—than, by remaining in communion with her, and 
continuing to disregard her ordinances; for they thus 
disturb her peace, and will ultimately rend, or be the 
cause of rending her body. 

But the interruption of the harmony of the Church, and | 
ihe divisions likely to ensue from it, are not the only— 


14 


though they are the greatest—evils which arise from dis- 
similarity in our worship, produced by clergymen who 
vary from the canonical and rubrical mode. ‘The evils 
however to which I allude are serious, and worthy of 
the attention of those clergymen who occasion them, al- 
though they do it unintentionally. They occur whenever 
such clergymen officiate in the churches of those who 
are uniform and regular. ‘Their departure from the ac- 
customed mode confuses the people, and: disturbs their 
devotions ; and their omission of parts of the service 
causes much dissatisfaction, and ‘prevents the benefit 
which the people might otherwise receive from their mi- 
nistrations, The same, or similar evils, happen to clergy- 
men who are habituated to the authorized service and 
the established usages of the Church, whenever they are 
called upon to perform divine service in churches, the 
clergymen of which, not satisfied with the prescribed 
modes, have either changed them for such as are more 
seemly in their own imaginations, or have abolished some 
of them altogether. ‘The consequence is, that the clergy- 
men not accustomed to such changes and novelties, be- 
come embarrassed, have their devotional feelings inter- 
rupted or disturbed, appear awkward, and are sometimes 
unfitted to perform their duty in a proper manner. » I 
speak of these evils, in some degree, from personal ex- 
perience. : | ; 

Surely no benefits can arise from clergymen’s altering 
the established service to suit their own or other persons’ 
notions of propriety or expediency, equal to these incon- 
veniences, and, indeed, in some respects, positive evils. 

What sober-minded conscientious minister, therefore, 
who attentively considers the subject, could think of de- 
parting from the forms and usages of the Church, in the 
smallest degree, without her entire concurrence and ap- 
probation ; lest he should mar or interrupt that beautiful 


15 


uniformity, so conducive to the harmony, order, and 
unity of the body of Christ? Besides; a single devia- 
tion, however slight, might, from its pernicious example, 
become the prolific parent of a host of others. For, if 
any one clergyman, or set of clergymen, may assume the 
privilege of altering, amending, abridging, or increasing 
the services of the Church, whether by a misconstruction 
of the thirty-fourth canon and one of the rubrics, or by a 
direct violation of the promise he made and subscribed 
at his ordination ; every other clergyman may, with equal 
propriety, assume the same privilege ; and who could tell 
to what lengths the practice might extend, and what evils 
it might produce ? 

In making these observations, young Gentlemen, I do 
not intend that it should be inferred that I have any 
ground to doubt of the correct and uniform course which, 
under the Divine blessing, you will pursue in your minis- 
trations. You have been too well instructed, and are 
under the influence of principles and feelings, I hope, 
which leave little room for fears on this subject. Yet in 
the waywardness of the human mind, and the temptations 
to error and sin to which it is exposed, as well from the 
wiles of men, as of Satan, the apostolic admonition is 
never unnecessary nor unseasonable: ‘ Let him that 
‘¢ thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.” 

Praying that you may be preserved from these and all 
other evils, in the discharge of the duties in which you 
are about to engage, we commend you to the grace of 
Gop, through Jesus Christ our Lord. 


16a ree | 
Pal igh ‘ed Gating ‘ 
| "gee oak Pay eee Oe daa: ot ios poms 
ayy B i ne wow sie RPI Mees f! OM), dviece. eh 
cap prtyihe wy ioe at eh orn] 4; pile ite 
ficy yr oe ay a i eye} Be fy 


m.. pert ARLE 
ie fis i eras! knee hay rie A Briar i 
a a om T me oie vo BSE: Bevel 
dw ey ng Tae foi Ao Rea 
| ee store a sictiiep Bw Het ipl 
ore foo igh sisir sn At ae ah a 


> x, 


TO iat Cagle td 
OS Bai ot Nai 
; #, sia) Hite Hob ne % Li oe a 

dy at Ne a Piao 


rs 


me wi ds erlang ‘itil 


x q 4 fee 
} Wy. f= 

b oS i. ay 

* we/Et 

j ree \ 

a ' vod * ee : 


7 a ; > a 
7 ths Ps £4 re 3 ei: oh ey 
fe ai 2. Pe ¥ aye ; 
ee “wise 1 ee 

‘ J ure Set 
ty: Sep Tg ton! % vi ! 


